The philosophies of men mingled with the philosophies of women.

There’s Nothing Funny About Second Wives

Especially in the LDS Church, where a good many members have a second wife or two in their ancestry. Particularly among General Authorities, who take polygamy very seriously. And certainly in General Conference, where the membership of the Church reverently assembles and tunes in for uplifting counsel. Well, life is full of surprises. Here are the first lines from the talk given by President Oaks in the Saturday morning session of Conference:

A letter I received some time ago introduces the subject of my talk. The writer was contemplating a temple marriage to a man whose eternal companion had died. She would be a second wife. She asked this question: Would she be able to have her own house in the next life, or would she have to live with her husband and his first wife? [Chuckles from the audience.] I just told her to trust the Lord. [More chuckles.]

I’m not sure what is more disappointing, Pres. Oaks playing this up for a laugh or the assembled congregation laughing on cue. This is what I wrote in my notes: “A second temple wife — everyone chuckles. Why? This isn’t funny.” Only in the LDS Church would someone tell a second wife joke. And only in the LDS Church would the audience laugh.

But let’s stay positive here. Rather than be offended (I’m not) or wag the finger of shame in someone’s direction, let’s think of some better answers that Pres. Oaks might have given to this poor lady who (again, only in Mormonism) has *serious* concerns about the consequences of temple marriage for women. And by women I don’t mean just second wives, I mean all Mormon women, who in LDS theology are all potentially second wives or first wives who end up with sister wives eventually sealed to Mr. Husband.

Pres. Oaks’ answer was: Just trust the Lord. I assume that would apply to concern about sharing a husband as well as sharing a house, that being the more serious concern about the whole plural marriage arrangement. There are several alternative answers Pres. Oaks could have given, none of them good. I’ll sort of start with believing, orthodox answers and move down the list.

1 – “In the Celestial Kingdom, all men and women are perfected, which includes personality and conduct. It will be a lot easier to get along with everyone, even a first wife, in the celestial realm.” So maybe there isn’t jealousy in the Celestial Kingdom, problem solved.

2 – “It is well known that women are more righteous than men, which leads to a gender imbalance in the Celestial Kingdom. Plural marriage solves this problem. I know it introduces some difficulties for women, in this life or the next, but that’s what you get for being so righteous. Consider the alternative arrangement: you’re probably happier with half a husband than two or three of them.” The way General Authorities often talk up LDS women and talk down LDS men, I’m surprised we haven’t heard this before.

3 – “To understand the answer about the house, you have to understand the patriarchal order. In heaven as well as in this world, men preside. So if your celestial husband wants all his wives in one house, you’ll share a house. If your celestial husband wants his wives in separate houses, you’ll have separate houses. Question answered.” I fear that there are plenty of LDS priesthood holders and leaders who would endorse this response.

4 – “You need to understand that the Kingdom of God is a patriarchal order, established under the umbrella of priesthood. Plural marriage exists primarily for the benefit and enjoyment of those holding the priesthood. If some women have concerns about the arrangement, that is of little concern to those who designed and who run the system.” This has the advantage of being fairly candid (about the men not really caring about women who wring their hands — that’s why Pres. Oaks can joke about it).

5 – “Focus on the joy that marriage will bring you in this life. We don’t really know that much about arrangements in the next life — don’t tell anyone, but we’re really only guessing about heavenly marriage. So being a second temple wife temporally, in this life, may not even mean you’ll be a second wife contemporaneously in the next life.” This may very well assuage the concern about being a celestial second wife, but at the cost of undermining the whole LDS doctrine of marriage in heaven. D&C 76 makes is pretty clear there are lots of single people in heaven (a couple of rungs down the ladder) and they are, we are told, going to be quite happy in their kingdoms of glory. So, in a roundabout way, Mormon theology is suggesting that if there is no marriage in heaven, we’d still be very happy there.

You may think I’m writing all this rather tongue in cheek, playing for laughs the same way Pres. Oaks did. I’m not. This is a serious issue which troubles many LDS women and troubles them deeply. I am sorry for the poor woman who wrote the letter to Pres. Oaks and listened to 10,000 Mormons in attendance laugh at her plight. I am sorry for the thousands of women in similar situations who are unhappy with what Mormon theology teaches them about their situation. I am sorry a General Authority thinks a second wife scenario is a nice little joke to tell in Conference. But if you are having a Mormon conversation with a woman who has such a concern, good luck coming up with a better response than the one Pres. Oaks offered or one of those I sketched out above.

Ideally a response to this issue would be informed, honest, and emotionally reassuring. Is there such an answer? This issue has really painted the Church (and women who accept its teachings) into an ugly little corner. The only thing that would make it uglier is if polygamy was somehow reinstated in the here and now.

55 thoughts on “There’s Nothing Funny About Second Wives”

Another answer was provided by a kind and thoughtful Stake President to us, many years ago. It was good enough for me to shelve this question for a couple of decades. (Not for all time, as it turns out.)

His rationale–admitting it was logic not revelation–was that ordinances and sealings in this life give us options, not obligations, in the next. Meaning that WE will work it out.

The humor in the situation is not the concern about being a second wife. The humor is in the understatement of the concern by framing it as an issue of houses. Based on the interaction, it appears obvious to me that the woman writing to President Oaks intended the humor. If you think people are laughing at a poor rube for her simple mindedness, I think that says more about you than anyone else.

As for your alternative answers, yes, they are in fact making light of the same situation you are accusing President Oaks of making light of. The attempt to waive that fact away falls completely flat. And no, none of them are any better than the answer given. The last gets close, but it is both contradictory to revealed truth and, perhaps more importantly, insensitive to this woman’s concern. She wants to be married to her husband in the next life. Saying we don’t know if she will even be married to him would have the opposite effect as the comfort she was looking for.

More to the point, the entire purpose of the talk was to reiterate in a less sarcastic, more faithful manner the very idea you appear to be promoting. Sometimes, we just don’t know, so don’t pretend to know when you don’t. But we do know that the Lord will provide for our happiness, so we can take comfort in that even in our absence of knowledge of the specifics.

If my wife were to die, the idea of polygamy haunts me. I’ve decided there is no way I could remarry, at least, not be sealed again. I could never (will never) ask either of my wives to go through this process.

Also, first, given recent comments by Oaks, it seems he (and many members) view marriage as primarily, and above all else, sex. And sex as only about procreation. Hence the stuff about ‘binary’ marriage and gender. Both of those premises, however, I reject categorically. It’s ridiculous, too me, that, as a church, we say “The Lord will work it out” in regards to polygamy, but cannot say the same thing here.

But then to laugh about it? Such a response ought to be condemned by all. Not just those by on the bloggernacle. Smugness. Smugness all around in this current leadership. And it’s killing the testimonies of many.

That laugh line was devastating to hear. Devastating for a man with 2 sealings to make the joke. Devastating to hear the conference center laughing at this woman’s concern. To me, this was a real low point in General Conference. I’m tired of dismissive head pats and women’s concerns being laughed at whenever concerns about polygamy come up. Polygamy is damaging to women psychologically. It creates a sense of inferiority in our women, and dread and fear of the hereafter. We demonstrate repeatedly that as a Church we value dead polygamists more than living women. We value men more than women. We value male choice more than female consent. We value stereotypical gender roles more than actual people. And we don’t listen to women with anything nearing empathy.

The only alternative I see is to disbelieve that the Church has any clue at all about the hereafter, which kind of throws their doctrinal authority into question given how many (contradictory even) authoritative statements there are about it (and about both polygamy and fidelity). So that works if you figure that Church is not there to provide answers or to interpret or clarify things like doctrine or commandments, but just as a community of Christians devoted to trying to understand (individually) and live the teachings of Jesus. That is what works for me.

I am not in this position, but I know so many Mormon women who have been adversely affected by the sealing policies that allow men to be sealed to multiple women and women to only be sealed once. That policy speaks volumes, and I can’t hear any explanation when the policy speaks so loudly.

President Oaks is a “Special Witness of Jesus Christ”, like the other 14 Apostles. It’s amazing to me that he continues to choose to talk on these kind of subjects. He’s already the target of many critics in and out of the Church for his focus on LGBQ issues. And now he wants to discuss a polygamy-related topic? This is particularly concerning because he himself (along with President Nelson, of course) is a practicing eternal polygamist. How else do you describe someone sealed to two women? This fact has not been lost on my daughters, who wonder what the Plan is all about when 2 of the top three leaders of the Church have set themselves up with polygamy-like structures in the next life. Again, all the more reason why I’m surprised he would remind us of this fact by talking about it this weekend.

PS: I wonder how different my perception of General Conference would be from last weekend if President Oaks had not spoken…and had not given his pre-conference remarks on Thursday. I thought GC was pretty cool if you delete his input, and I doubt I’m alone.

Polygamy is a horrible patriarchal dominant practice. It inflated male ego and diminishes female self worth. Making light of the anguish of this sister is repulsive. Woman carry the burden of this practice even if they have one husband, fearful of the possible practice of it in the next. It makes marriage problematic for those who want to remarry and the next life messy. I side with Emma when asked where Joseph got the idea for this practice she replied, “Straight from Hell!”

I’m mostly disappointed that the audience missed a chance to meet Oaks’s belittling humor with dead silence. I can’t be disappointed in Oaks, because it was only to be expected from him. He has a habit of using public ridicule as a rhetorical device. But if you think about it, the question could only be as ridiculous as the theology it’s based on.

I am not in a habit of defending DHO and I have often disagreed with him privately. But, while there seem to be a good number of bloggers and commenters who think DHO made a joke out of that sister’s inquiry about where she as a second wife would live in the hereafter, I can find no evidence of that after listening and viewing the talk a number of times. I see no evidence that he played it for a laugh or that he gave any cue to the audience when to laugh. DHO does not seem to me responsible for the combination of amused and perhaps nervous laughter from some of those in attendance. In fact, he returned to the subject of that inquiry in a way that chastised the laughers for treating the sister’s question as trivial: “So what about a question like I mentioned earlier about where spirits live? If that question seems strange or trivial to you, consider many of your own questions …”

It seems DHO’s answer is as close to Dave B.’s no 5, or Christian’s former stake president’s, as DHO could reasonably come: “There is so much that we do not know that our only sure reliance is to trust in the Lord and his love for his children.” I choose to trust the Lord more than the uses and abuses of the “sealing power,” but that does not preclude finding inspiration and value in those sealing rituals. It does not preclude seeing them primarily valuable as being sealed into the family of God.

I agree that polygamy (as opposed to which house one occupies in the hereafter) “is a serious issue which troubles many LDS [men and] women and troubles them deeply.” (And I doubt the Church would approve of my current, tentative resolution of the issue.) But I do not have any evidence as to whether the woman who wrote the letter to Pres. Oaks approved his use of it in conference, and I do not see any evidence that “a General Authority thinks a second wife scenario is a nice little joke to tell in Conference.” Maybe I just missed it. Maybe DHO could have introduced it more sensitively and avoided some of the audience’s inappropriate response.

For me his talk was a refreshing reprieve from his past focus and and remarkable admission/assertion that we actually know very little about the hereafter. That assertion is also an important opening on matters other than polygamy.

*For some the chapter on sealings in Stapley’s “The Power of Godliness” provides a great glimpse into what such sealings meant in early Mormonism and how that meaning changed and developed.

I asked my mother-in-law why she chose not to get sealed to her 2nd husband since she and her first husband were civilly divorced.
She replied she had no desire to be a the polygamous wife of her second husband.

Glad I missed hearing Oaks talk.

Just more evidence the leaders are ensconced in the “bubble,” of white male privilege.

Oaks is the worst. Every time he speaks it is like a train wreck that you can’t look away from. He flaunts people’s legitimate concerns as fodder for a joke, he admits to not giving apologies, he has this remarkable obsession with the LGBTQ community, and he really has no understanding of the concept of Christ’s grace. For the sake of the church, he should just stop talking.

I can’t help but wonder what would have changed had President Oaks used this introductory story instead:

“A letter I received some time ago introduces the subject of my talk. The writer was contemplating a marriage to a young woman whose eternal companion had died. He would be a second husband. He asked this question: Would he be sealed to his future children in the next life, or would his children be sealed to his wife and her first husband? I just told him to trust the Lord.”

Would the audience have chuckled at this question, or would changing it to a male perspective elicit respectful sympathy? Would his understandable concern be dismissed with a smile? Would “just trust the Lord” be the actual advice given to the man, or would his question earn a lecture about the primary importance of a temple marriage, that his eternal destiny hung on this decision? Would “just trust the Lord” mean that he should continue looking for a more suitable companion, one to whom he could be sealed, trusting the Lord to deliver, never mind the widow?

Oak’s long pattern of demeaning women and gay people and anyone, really, who wants to understand some of the thornier issues in Mormonism is just too ugly to waste time parsing. His public behavior and the title you’ve chosen really sas it all.

Hard to believe he’s an apostle or any kind of exemplar of Christian behavior. How did that happen?

If church leaders really believed we don’t have a lot of information about the hereafter and shouldn’t worry about marriage arrangements, then why do they hold on to outdated sealing policies that are based on 19th century beliefs and understandings of the hereafter? Allowing men to be sealed to more than one woman, without giving the same option to women, indicates they have a belief that polyandry will NOT be practiced, yet polygyny WILL be practiced. (Even the policy of allowing deceased women to be sealed to more than one husband is about allowing the woman to select which ONE man she will spend eternity with.) To me, saying “Don’t worry about it” and “We don’t really know” rings hollow when they have such stipulations.

JR: I tend to agree with you (and Laurel) that the blame for the response falls on the audience laughing. I hope (not quite confidently believe, though) Oaks would not share the question without permission from its author. But that doesn’t mean that this and similar questions are a matter to take lightly. If he didn’t think he was going to get a laugh out of it, the placement in his talk seems suspicious. Opening with folksy, relatable stories designed to get attention and add a dash of humor is straight out of the talk-writing toolkit. It’s incredibly tone deaf for him to be the one using this story, and for him to hand-wave away objections to the current policies that benefit him at the expense of women’s peace of mind.

I’m with JR. I’m not fond of the words of DHO. His statement that you can’t criticize a leader of the church is (you provide the word). But I think we’re placing blame in the wrong place by going after him.

His joke he was making wasn’t about how silly the question was, it was about how there’s some extremely complex questions we just don’t know the answer to. His body language said, to me, that he was reading a question he was uncomfortable with and wanted to show the audience that he didn’t have an answer. And his lack of answer was what was supposed to be funny in light of being part of an team that’s supposed to have the answers.

The problem is the timing of the audience. Had the audience laughed after he said “trust in the Lord” then that’s beautiful self-deprecating humor. It is humbling that instead of trying to give an answer because you’re so smart, instead saying I don’t know. Especially in light of the fact that his current wife will have to deal with that same question.

BUT the way the audience laughed at the woman’s question was what made it sad.

As I’ve considered and studied polygamy I’ve come to a few conclusions for myself. First, it’s not clear from historical records whether Joseph Smith practiced it as Brigham Young taught it. There is a lot of conflicting information there. Second, sealing in the eternities is either monogamous or polyandrous – not the polygamy as taught by BY. I think JS only partially restored many of the truths about being sealed including everyone being sealed to each other. I feel when the baton was handed to BY, many things took a turn down a different path. As a result, the sealing doctrines are incomplete and misunderstood.

There are so many questions around this subject that need to be answered before Elder Oaks can just smile and say, “just trust God.” While specifics regarding individual arrangements may be outside the church’s purview, there are many questions that are not. While we should always be trusting God, women in this church should not have to constantly trust and hope and pray that God is not a sexist polygamist. This should never be something women or men have to wonder about.

We need clear revelation that God does not see women as reproductive vessels. God does not view polygamy as the higher marriage law. God is our Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, and They are not the authors of misery. They are the authors of the Plan of Happiness. There can only be true happiness in the celestial kingdom when all of God’s children have the same value, the same potential, the same worth, and the same opportunity for joy in their relationships.

If these things are true about God, then we have to stop treating women like they are reproductive vessels, adorning jewels, access to greater glory or seed continuation for men, or in general, other beings to be managed and cherished by men. Women are children of God just like men are. To treat them any differently is wrong. Until we address these fundamental issues surrounding female worth and polygamy, responses like Elder Oaks’ are not enough.

If it all works out in the end then why are we even doing work for the dead? Heavenly Father can make it all work out anyway. Why not use all that time and energy on helping the poor and strengthening the members?

Yes, Angela. DHO has a long history of tone deafness. Mine’s not as long or public, but I have good reason to suspect it’s there.

Years ago on the first day of his trust law class, he told us that he wasn’t going to teach us anything we couldn’t learn out of a book, so we might want to drop his class. (I did.) I wonder if there’s a version of that intro he could begin his conference talks with? From him I learn more about him than about the gospel, but I appreciated learning that he knows there’s a lot he doesn’t know. Maybe that’s just me.

If I could be so bold, allow me to offer an alternative explanation for the laughter during President Oaks’ talk. When I was listening and experienced this particular moment it didn’t bother me because I interpreted the reaction he got as a nervous laugh rather than members laughing at someone expense. I think this is a more charitable way of assessing both the reaction and his comments.

I discovered some time ago that I was better off not watching or listening to Elder Oaks talks but since I was viewing with extended family I thought I’d give it a go. Nope – what an odd way to start off a talk? At that point I excused myself so am not aware its context. Fast forward to his talk at the Saturday evening Women’s Session – should I stay with it or should I go? That one was even more appalling. I turned to Netflix and watched an episode of The Good Place instead.

I laughed. But it was not a laugh of mirth, but rather a nervous, uncomfortable laugh of, “Oh no, where is he going to go with this?” I suspect many in the conference center laughed for the same reasons. Not the best way to introduce his actual topic, but I give him credit for openly acknowledging that we know very little about the afterlife. That sliver of humility gives me hope that there is still openness to receive additional revelation regarding marriage, gender, priesthood and LGBT issues. Remember that it was Oaks that recently pushed the idea that set apart women act with priesthood power and authority.

I asked my children not to let DHO separate them from God. But, his rhetoric and the constant drumbeat about our LGBT brothers and sisters is driving them out. They do not want to faithfully persist. We have too many beautiful gay friends for us not be impacted by his constant speeches, I wish he had not raised the spirit world and polygamy during conference because we had some agnostic friends who were excited to watch with us. It just opened up an uncomfortable discussion that we weren’t prepared to have. Sometimes I just want to throw in the towel like my children.

Strange that it seems no one has suggested the obvious: Yes, you may well be living in a house with your husband and another woman for the next 300 million years. If this bothers you then don’t marry a man that is already married. In fact, you’d better consider that you’ll be spending the next 300 million years together even if you are married only to each other.

Mary writes “We need clear revelation that God does not see women as reproductive vessels.”

What I hope for is clear revelations on what God sees, wants, offers. I do not suggest to God what his revelations ought to be lest my own idea reflect back from a silent heaven and I mistake me for he. As to the topic you raise; the only reason for men and women to exist as men and women *is* reproduction.

“If it all works out in the end then why are we even doing work for the dead?”

It benefits you to do this work. If you do not, someone else will; so yes, it will work out in the end and you can be a part of that working out. I’ve met one of the persons for whom I was endowed. It was indescribable. But happened only once; most ancestors appear to have the same free agency as the living and seldom choose to avail themselves of temple blessings.

“Why not use all that time and energy on helping the poor and strengthening the members?”

There is no why. You can choose to do exactly that with all of your energy and perhaps that is what you were fore-ordained to do. This is balanced by those people that spend much of nearly every day in the temple; it is what they choose to do.

You’re missing the obvious here. If you are the first wife and predecease your husband, the husband can then go and, without your consent, marry and be sealed to subsequent other women.
(Or, perhaps, like what happened in the early years of polygamy, your wife could right now be sealed to another man!)

I’m on the nervous laugh train also. There is no way DHO was trying to get a laugh out of that and there is also no way the woman sending the letter intended the humor. There is nothing funny about it. There is also nothing funny about me raising a daughter in a church where her eternal destiny is to be the property of some worthy priesthood holder, hoping that she will be wife number one, worthy and virtuous enough to get his seed on the first night of the month and eager to pop out lots of spirit babies that will worship and glorify Him. The whole message of his talk was “what do we know about the spirit world?”, and the answer “not much”. If we would be honest with ourselves, we could substitute any subject in the same question and the answer will always be “not much”. He even went so far as to define how we can identify true doctrine, namely they all have to be talking about it, then he reverts back to crazy teachings that no one else is talking about but him. Damn I hate the idea of spirit babies.

On a side note, for a minute during his talk I really thought he was going to specifically mention the book Mormon Doctrine and ask us all to burn our copies of it. That would be awesome, but most likely he was just trying to shut the Julie Rowe’s of the world down.

I’ll also second Stapley’s take on the origin of the sealing and what it morphed into.

Zach, I agree that the primary intended audience of his talk was probably followers of Julie Rowe, Denver Snuffer and the like. Most Mormons remain blissfully unaware of these fringe groups and completely missed this context.

I’m no fanboy of DHO and find his teachings to be a mixed bag, but on the whole I think this last one was slightly net positive.

Never having lived in Utah, or had any polygamist ancestors, so polygamy is not often in my mind. I have not seen what the Oaks had to say because we have conference sunday next week. I was shocked and disgusted by this post on the exponent a couple of weeks ago. https://www.the-exponent.com/mary-jane-wilford-woodruff-and-the-267-dead-wives/
Which describes an ancestor who at 68 married a 14 year old. Then describes how Wilford Woodruff for birthday presents to himself had random women sealed to him 60 or so at a time.
That we can then have Nelson and Oaks tell us that marriage is eternal and unchanging, and also tell us gay marriage undermines straight marriage. Polygamy undermines straight marriage, not gay marriage.
Oaks has made a career out of opposing gay marriage, now he tells us he really doesn’t know what will be acceptable in the next life. Pretty sure he believes (without any reason except his culture) that polygamy will be OK, and hetro monogamy, but not gay monogamy.
Incredible? Why should we believe he has light or knowledge on this subject?

I’d also go nervous laughter as to how the answer would play out. That was my initial thinking. I’ll give both Oaks and the audience the benefit of a doubt.

Although I didn’t laugh, I did experience a slight mix of incredulity and sadness. I’ve written similarly before, but if I had to boil a description of heaven down to one sentence, I’d tell someone it was a place where all individuals are happy, satisfied, and full of joy, made possible by the Atonement of the Savior. Regardless the circumstances, Heaven will meet those terms for everyone. I guess it’s easy for me to think that way when I’m not experiencing what this woman is, but I’d like to think my faith would allow me to function without fretting over specifics of the question.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have questions, nor fail to sympathize with those who do. And it’s not just women who struggle with these types of questions. I’ve known of a couple of good men whose first wives left them early on in their marriage, and thereafter ended up marrying young widows who were very much in love with their deceased husbands. I’m sure they’ve wondered whether they’d become bachelors in the Spirit World. In the end, it’s still the Plan of Happiness, and I don’t think our Heavenly Parents are in the practice of exempting righteous people from it, regardless the circumstances.

“… the only reason for men and women to exist as men and women *is* reproduction.”

This Michael 2 comment seems to fly in the face of DHO’s point. How do we know if reproduction is the reason gender is essential in the eternities?

The first human was physically created by using some form of power to command earth’s elements to come together. We don’t know the process for the second, but our accounts include no female on the scene. Only men.

The most important human ever born was physically begotten by the spirit moving upon a woman. Our tradition and scripture assign a male gender to the Holy Ghost (not sure that’s tradition or true). Either way, no woman needed for initiating conception.

We can believe gender is essential without claiming we know why. Maybe creation is a team effort requiring no gender. Maybe governing the heavens requires a council including both genders. As Elder Oaks said, we don’t know much about it.

This talk and several others this conference began with a reference to a letter written to a GA, one talk even began with photos sent to a GA. Periodically the brethren send out official communications reminding us to not send letters to the general authorities of the church. But then we get talk after talk at GC beginning with letters sent to the general authorities of the church. Which counsel should I take, the written admonitions or the examples repeatedly given in GC?

One point I didn’t see here that always surprises me is how many conference talks address concerns of people who write the General Authorities letters. Yet, it has been a long-standing policy that Church members are not to write letters to General Authorities. In a recent Mormon Stories interview, Donna Showalter talks about sending a letter to Elder Holland about her gay son and the letter being returned to the Stake President. To me it’s very clear that there are people with family and business connections to General Authorities who have access to meetings and letters in a way that the general Church membership does not. It seems like this is also a common theme in Mormon Stories interviews and in my experience where people have a family member who has had prominent Church callings and has connections to a General Authority to have an audience for a question. It’s also been kind of a long-standing status symbol for Church members to have General Authorities perform sealings.

I do think we have a tendency to bait and switch with these things where we have been pretty aggressive theologically about answering every question. When we run into problems, the tendency is to condemn people with spiritual hobbies or those who delve into the mysteries instead of just doing what they should and shame people for being curious about exploring these things further. I thought the polygamy laugh line was by design, to show that it was a very frivolous concern and illustrated that people worried too much about the particulars of the afterlife and should just stop worrying about it and do their family history work and serve in their callings. I think it was delivered and responded to in exactly the way intended.

I agree that we do not know all that much about the afterlife and agree with MaryAnn and other commenters that we should stop spending so much time and energy on cancelling and approving sealings. I also think this should spill over into other areas, like LGBT issues. I wish this talk would have been given about gay relationships and non-binary gender. We don’t know a lot about it, trust in the Lord and love people and the Lord will sort it all out afterwards.

I didn’t like the introduction to President Oaks’ talk. And it’s good to admit we don’t know very much. But what completely baffled and infuriated me, struck me as absolutely disingenuous, was that he was talking about the post-death pre-judgement period. As a finite time period I didn’t think any of us were too worried about that. It’s eternity we worry about. Something that particular talk studiously avoided.

He saved his address on the celestial kingdom for the women’s session, where polygamy got nary a mention, but apparently we know quite a lot about qualifications for the highest degree of glory, in which there’s no room for any lgbt+ folk. And anything else is definitely lesser, rather than, I don’t know, just different… he seemed very certain about that.

And while I’m at picking the bones of Pres Oaks various addresses, can I just say, that just because he had a particular interpretation of gender in mind when he signed off on the family proclamation, he can in no way say that the rest of the signatories had that same interpretation in mind. And so far he’s the only one saying what was meant by gender. I think we can take that, in his own words, as his opinion. Secondly, it’s kind of ironic that a leader of a religious tradition so eager to take scripture out of context and make it mean something other than the author intended, now takes exception to the fact that folks are doing this with the proclamation. And in fact it’s been happening since it was written. From the outset the proclamation has been used by some as a comfort to trans folks that yes gender is eternal and god knows who they truly are. And now he’s trying to put a stop to that.

“This talk and several others this conference began with a reference to a letter written to a GA, one talk even began with photos sent to a GA. Periodically the brethren send out official communications reminding us to not send letters to the general authorities of the church. But then we get talk after talk at GC beginning with letters sent to the general authorities of the church. Which counsel should I take, the written admonitions or the examples repeatedly given in GC?”

Could the “letters” have been conveniently made up such as the Presidents “I hear people say, sir…” statements?

Regarding Mary’s comment: ‘There can only be true happiness in the celestial kingdom when all of God’s children have the same value, the same potential, the same worth, and the same opportunity for joy in their relationships.’

I’m surprised that 2 Nephi 26:33 is not taken more seriously. After all, it IS canonized scripture:
‘For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.’

‘All are alike unto God’…….hmmm, what does that REALLY mean in the Mormon Church?

As an addendum to my above comment, I would like to point out another portion of 2 Nephi 26:33 and define terms that are part of accepted scripture in the church:
‘and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men.’

Definition of plain according to Merriam-Webster: characterized by simplicity: not complicated.
Does this sound like polygamy?

‘and all are alike unto God.’

Definition of alike according to Merriam-Webster: in the same manner, form, or degree : equally.
Does this sound like the churches treatment of women and the LGBTQ community?

There is a disconnect between the woman’s question (which had to do with the celestial kingdom and not just the spirit world prior to a celestial resurrection) and DHO’s references to the spirit world. It will be interesting to see if the published text version is edited to resolve that disconnect. To the extent DHO was addressing her question with advice to “trust in the Lord and his love,” he was addressing the celestial kingdom without saying so. Maybe the disconnect was a drafting problem; maybe it was intentional.

In the meantime, thanks to Hedgehog for the warning. I don’t plan to read or listen to his talk in the women’s session.

With all the long-standing confusion in Mormon discourse about the hereafter (not today’s subject), I am reminded of an impulsive (inspired?) quip to a distraught home-teachee following a mission president’s hellfire and damnation second-coming speech* in sacrament meeting. (He had been a religion professor at Ricks College.) My quip didn’t solve any problems of theology or prophecy, but it did facilitate my home-teachee’s calming down to focus on what she could actually do something about. After a short silence to gather my thoughts (a failed enterprise), I said only: “President __________ knows a lot of things and some of them are true.” I have had repeated impressions (the mot du jour) that the same could be said of many. Others “know” only a few things and hope that some of them are true.

*It had been enough to make the Primary teachers feel they had to change lesson plans to calm the kids down. Those who had listened to the damning dramatic apocalypse thought they were all going to die before they grew up. Those kids are now in their 30s and 40s.

In our current culture, diversity is supposed to be celebrated. I celebrate President Oak’s message as it is diverse from what is being peddled by the world. We should embrace this diversity and support President Oaks.

James: “I side with Emma when asked where Joseph got the idea for this practice she replied, ‘Straight from Hell!'” And she should know.

Mary Ann: “If church leaders really believed we don’t have a lot of information about the hereafter and shouldn’t worry about marriage arrangements, then why do they hold on to outdated sealing policies that are based on 19th century beliefs and understandings of the hereafter?” A good question indeed.

Emily: “If it all works out in the end then why are we even doing work for the dead? Heavenly Father can make it all work out anyway.” Another fine question. Hard to imagine a loving God greeting someone at the pearly gates, saying: “Sorry, the Mormons never got around to doing your temple work, no CK3 for you!”

Zach: “There is no way DHO was trying to get a laugh out of that and there is also no way the woman sending the letter intended the humor.” I’ll agree with the second half of your claim, but the pause Pres. Oaks gave after recounting the request for a separate house in the next life suggests he was expecting a laugh. He’s been giving Conference talks to a packed house for thirty years. He knows how a laugh line works.

Zach: “Serious question. When I post a comment on here arguing against polygamy, am I promoting a teaching, practice or doctrine that is contrary to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?” Zach, I think if you buy a billboard next to I-15 to spread your views about Mormonism, that’s promoting. Anything short of that is just friendly conversation.

Eli: “Although I didn’t laugh, I did experience a slight mix of incredulity and sadness.” I don’t think any Conference speaker aims for incredulity and sadness, but a few speakers get there anyway.

felixfabulous and alice: Yeah, that’s a real disconnect about the letters. Maybe they sneak a peek as some of the letters before they send them back to the Stake President for “member re-education.” Or maybe their assigned apostolic letter-opener selects a few good ones for Elder X to actually read. Or maybe they just make it up as needed to lend some flavor to their Conference talk. Next time show us the letter!

The “second wife” question is what keeps my current wife from going to the temple. We are both widowed, and were both sealed to our first spouses. So while she is my second wife, I am also her second husband. She maintains a current temple recommend, but has not been to a regular session since we got married.

She believes that, at some point, the Church policy will change, and she will be able to be sealed to me without cancelling her sealing to her first husband, the same way that I can be sealed to her without having to cancel my sealing to my first wife. We were in the unique situation be being able to be married civilly in the temple, but it was disturbing to both of us that the sealer went on and on about the importance of being sealed. Umm, we already ARE sealed. Just not to each other. In the meantime, she refuses to do an endowment session.

The really disturbing thing about this talk, which was titled “Trust in the Lord,” is that he isn’t really teaching about trusting in the Lord at all. He is using that theme as a cover to teach about polygamy, define what doctrine actually is, and then declare that the Proclamation to the Family is doctrine, along with at least some of the truths of the King Follett Sermon. It seems to me that Oaks real intention for this talk had absolutely nothing to do with trusting in the Lord at all.

Sincere question: Do you post this stuff because you are interested in actually discussing things, or do you just want confirmation of what you already believe? You have responded to multiple people who agree with you, but you have not even acknowledged the existence of people who don’t, with but one exception, but only to acknowledge where you agreed.

Dsc, discussion is the whole point of blogs. The bar to clear for a blog is whether comments that disagree are welcome or at least tolerated, not whether the poster chimes in with a pat on the back. You stated your own dissenting view quite persuasively early in the comment thread, as have a few others. I’m not inclined to call out someone who disagrees with me and start an argument. Dissenting views are welcome in the comments. It would be a pretty dull discussion or an echo chamber if everyone agreed with all the posts.

CS Eric, it certainly seems to be the case that the doctrine of eternal marriage or sealing complicates second marriages. It complicates divorces to an even greater degree. The leadership has had generations to figure out how to deal with these complications. A few adjustments have been made, but there’s only so much that can be done. The doctrine is inherently problematic: it offers first-time spouses that special something that comes with forever marriage performed in a temple, but it also offers second-time spouses doctrinal questions, bureaucratic hurdles (trying to get clearance for a sealing or annulment of a prior sealing when requested), and emotional challenges.

Ironically, most members are very supportive in every way of second marriages and blended families and children who shuttle between parents in custody sharing situations that are part of every ward these days. And that speaks to how decent and caring most Mormons are. Members tend to celebrate eternal marriage and sealing when it offers good things, but bracket it out when it creates complications and instead focus on supporting the happiness in the here and now of the affected persons, with fingers crossed behind back hoping God will sort it out in the next life.

Hey, everybody! Sorry if this is an overly contentious way to pop back in, but I ask this question sincerely: How is it not a contradiction to support recognition ofLGBTQ* relationships—as it seems most on this blog do—all the while categorically reviling polygamy in the strongest possible terms?

Polygamy is one form of what’s usually called polyamory, and if all involved are consenting adults, I don’t understand why you wouldn’t grant them the same courtesy of defining their sexuality and relationships as you would to anyone else.

I say “categorically,” because I haven’t noticed anyone prefacing their comments about polygamy with “as practiced by some early Mormons” or “as practiced by the FLDS” or other groups that involve coercion and marrying underage girls. Perhaps that’s just implied on this board? But, if so, it still marginalizes non-monogamists who are consenting adults, some of whom have polygamous relationships.

Or do perhaps some of you distinguish between gay and lesbian marital monogamy, while considering anything but two-person marital monogamy to be a violation of the law of chastity? At which point, you’re really so far outside what’s traditionally considered the law of chastity, I’m kind of wondering why you’d bother choosing polyamory as the hill to die on?

Polygamy’s an interesting topic as an investigator. Most members don’t want to talk about it and, if pressed, will only condemn it, and I concede that polygamy in the early church was bad for women, but, then, marriage in general has been pretty bad for women for most of Western history. Monogamy has been little different from buying a cow until relatively recently. (Until the last few months, the cow actually had more protection from rape than the wife in a couple of states that repealed their marital rape exemptions in 2019.)

I’ve toyed with the idea that D&C132 was a real revelation from God. What if God was trying to convey that all this hetero-normative monogamy wasn’t the only thing our Heavenly Parents had in mind? That wouldn’t necessarily preclude Joseph from misusing such a revelation to his own ends—after all, his first wife decidedly did NOT give her consent. Although he also engaged in some polyandrous marriages, which would suggest that he didn’t consider the revelation to exclude one woman/multiple men.

Yeah, I know….it sounds crazy…. But not as crazy as going to the lengths of claiming revelation from God just to cheat on your wife—something millions of men have accomplished without dragging any sword-bearing angels into it. He took steps that virtually ensured his wife and his fledging church would find out about his dalliances, which he knew would scandalize them, and it’s hard to square that unless Joseph really believed it was something that God wanted people to know.

And if that’s the case, what would it mean for the law of chastity and the parameters of marriage? And if it’s not the case, how is that not a testimony-buster right there? And if you support gay and lesbian marriage, but not polyamory, then on what grounds?

That’s an awfully broad set of issues you raise, Investi-Jesse, that are probably best addressed in another post, but I’ll note a few ideas quickly.

You refer to LGBTQ relationships and polyamory and consenting adults, which are largely unrelated to the narrower legal consequences of marriage and plural marriage. The legal objection to plural marriage is it runs counter to the legal status and protections of the law for paired spouses. Upon divorce from a male husband, a female wife has claims upon the husband for an equitable division of assets and possibly support. Upon death, a wife has claims upon the estate, subject to a will and state statutes. Polygamy undermines these spousal protections by fragmenting assets and by introducing a lot of uncertainty. How would a judge come to an equitable division of assets in a divorce if there were, say, three remaining wives with continuing claims for support in addition to the divorcing wife? How would a judge balance support for children of remaining spouses with the claim for support of children of the divorcing spouse? Divorce and estate proceedings are complicated enough without multiplying parties and claims that would come with plural marriage.

History certainly supports this position. In living marriage, in divorce, and estate considerations after death, plural spouses fare poorly. Mormon plural spouses, whether first or later wives, weren’t very happy on the whole. It is an inherently unfair institution for plural wives. There are no legal structures to protect their interests. Developing such legal structures, even if polygamy were accepted in the law, would be messy, complicated, and unsatisfactory.

Extending legal marriage to same-sex couples, on the other hand, has none of these complications. It fits nicely within existing legal frameworks.

I dunno, Dave….that just sounds to me like an excuse for continuing to marginalize non-monogamous people….

Polyamorous families already get around the lack of legal recognition by drawing up contracts or even forming an entity, like an LCC, that will guarantee them a share of the family assets if they part ways. It’s not really that difficult. Children typically remain with their biological parents, just like they typically do when monogamous people divorce.

Polyamory is just the one exception I’ve noticed, where both liberal and conservative Mormons seem equally prejudiced. I don’t understand how liberal Mormons who support gay rights justify that prejudice morally.

In my opinion, and my personal experience having a temple sealing, divorce and remarriage…life gets messy with individual circumstances. There is no way eternity fits into one model based on 1800s standards and symbolic teachings.

God is greater than that. Whatever answer expands love in families for eternity is a better answer than pigeon-holing men and women potential based on a temple ceremony.

Trust God is the only answer that makes sense. We should let go of limited thinking a d should fight against any ideas that belittle men or women . It’s not a joke. As a father of 2 daughters that have both came home crying from church when told ridiculous things about some boys’ misguided beliefs in the eternities….I know how real these issues are.

All of us have to find a way to trust God and believe personal circumstances show us continually how God loves us all greater than how church policies can be drafted in a handbook. We have to have personal revelation guide us through.

Otherwise…I’m stuck sealed to a woman that I can’t stand, but because of temple promises I have to be with that person through eternity? The CK then becomes hell.

No…common sense would say it doesn’t work that way. Just as Joseph learned his brother Alvin could still go to heaven, we learn in the church many things get worked out in the next life (which we don’t know much about, to be honest…I mean…houses?? Why are there houses?).

Temple ordinances can give us hope and help us move closer to God when used in the holy spirit of promised blessings. By individual results and circumstances require adaptation of things. Everything will be ok if we love.

Trust God. Focus on being a good person now in this life while you can practice that. We cannot demean our daughters who raise serious concerns about their place in God’s kingdom.

God’s kingdom is so great…all our earthly fears and misunderstandings will get taken care of. We must trust God and value everyone equally, and walk by faith.